This is Part 1 of a three part series on amending HOA declarations. Part 2 deals with both sides of the argument around whether HOA declaration (CC&Rs) should be allowed to require a supermajority threshold- particularly the high bars of 80-90%- for amendments calling for a recalibration. Part 3 ask what should be the right threshold.
For many Nevada homeowners, updating outdated or overly rigid HOA declarations (CC&Rs) can feel impossible. That’s because most declarations require supermajority approval—often 67%, 75%, or even 90%—to amend, and achieving that level of consensus is extremely difficult in practice.
To address this problem, the Nevada Legislature enacted NRS 116.21175 in 2005. This provision provides a legal bypass that empowers associations to amend their declarations even if they fall short of the supermajority vote required by the governing documents—but only if certain conditions are met and the courts agree.
What Does NRS 116.21175 Allow?
In brief, this statute allows an association to:
Proceed with an amendment to the CC&Rs after obtaining a majority vote of unit owners, even if it falls short of the supermajority requirement stated in the declaration;
Petition the district court to approve the amendment;
Obtain judicial confirmation if the court finds the amendment to be “reasonable and not arbitrary, capricious or otherwise unlawful.”
In other words, the courts (in theory) serve as a backstop, ensuring that changes supported by a majority can proceed only if they are fair and lawful.
Why Was This Law Needed?
Many HOAs, especially older ones, have declarations drafted by developers that include nearly impossible amendment thresholds- that continues today. Even when most owners agree an update is needed—for example, to modernize use restrictions or clarify outdated enforcement procedures—just a handful of no votes or non-responses can doom the effort.
NRS 116.21175 recognizes that democracy in community governance should not be held hostage by apathy or obstructionism, and gives reasonable majority-backed reforms a path forward, while still protecting the rights of dissenting owners.
Protections for Minority Owners?
Importantly, minority owners who oppose an amendment still have key protections under the law:
Court Review: No amendment can be forced through without a judge agreeing it is reasonable and lawful. This ensures a neutral party looks at the bigger picture—not just a board or majority group.
Notice and Participation: Owners must receive notice of the proposed change, the results of the vote, and the petition to the court. They can participate in the hearing and voice their objections.
Standard of Review: The court must reject any amendment that is:
Arbitrary or capricious,
Discriminatory or retaliatory,
Contrary to the law or the reasonable expectations of owners.
Good Faith Requirement: Boards using this tool must demonstrate that the amendment process was conducted in good faith—not as a power grab or to target certain individuals or groups.
A Tool for Reform, Not Abuse?
NRS 116.21175 is not intended to be a loophole—rather a balancing tool. It ensures (in theory) that declarations can be amended when owners reasonably want change, but also that no minority group is steamrolled or stripped of their rights. The courts act as a safeguard, requiring transparency, fairness, and legality before any changes can take effect.
Takeaway for Homeowners
If you’re part of a community stuck with rigid rules and unreachable amendment thresholds, this law gives you a pathway to change—but you must still organize and win a majority.
If you’re a minority concerned about unfair amendments, remember: you have a right to contest any petition and ask the court to protect your interests.
Whether for or against a proposed change, understand your rights, your voting power, and your legal tools
Related NvHOAreform Blog Posts: Anti-SLAPP- what owners need to know; Delegation of Authority; HOA Owners under assault'; Declarant Control- misunderstood; and HOAs private or quasi-governmental
